ie8 fix

Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

Phony open source to be a 2010 trend

By | December 9, 2009, 6:50am PST

Summary: Many claims of openness are going to be challenged next year, and my only prediction is that the identity of the attacker may sometimes surprise you.

Open source has been the coming thing for years.

For 2010 it’s the thing.

Even Microsoft is touting open source capabilities in Microsoft Office and Windows 7, notes Siteworx founder Tim McLaughlin. (This is actually a skateboard ramp design from the GOPED Message Board.)

Those claims may be easy to dismiss or laugh off, but if Microsoft is  trying to get some open source street cred then everyone else is too. And there are now thousands of programs where elements of open and closed source are mixed.

For years makers of closed source programs have sought to at least connect with open source standards, through plug-ins or APIs. More recently we have seen elements of major programs, like Adobe’s PDF format, go open source. This is often followed by a flood of open source alternatives to the main package.

It goes the other way too. The whole idea of Eclipse is to give vendors an open source shared store from which proprietary programs can be built. BSD-type licenses explicitly allow closed source to be built with open, and many open source companies have debated closing some “secret source” in order to maintain cash flow.

When there’s an open source “community” version and a paid “enterprise” version of the same software, what is the difference between writing a check for enterprise support and just buying a closed source license?

As open source increasingly becomes an enterprise mandate, you can expect such questions to gain new relevancy. How open do you have to be? How closed must you be?

These questions have been a feature of leading-edge open source commentary all year, as illustrated by our own Matt Asay. Once a staunch GPL advocate, he no longer reflexively condemns Microsoft’s open source efforts. Baby indeed needs a new pair of shoes.

Who knows, maybe O’Reilly will do a book on this, with some strange beastie on the cover. What would an OSINO look like? (Open Source In Name Only.)

What thought leaders talk about one year often becomes common currency the next. Many claims of openness are going to be challenged next year, and my only prediction is that the identity of the attacker may sometimes surprise you.

I may have to update my famous open source incline, maybe adding a third dimension. Or even a fourth.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

25
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Phony open source to be a 2010 trend
gaberdiye03 Updated - 21st Jun
@cornpie I guess I'm a retard but I was under the impression that most pembe maske energy balance oyna oyunu moliva orjin krem tutune son nanomatik complex 41 new fx15companies (like red hat for example) were for profit companies...and intended to make money from their work by some means.
0 Votes
+ -
if you exclude M$ 'open source'
Linux Geek 9th Dec 2009
the rest are legitimate projects.
0 Votes
+ -
What is "M$ open source" ?
paul2011 9th Dec 2009
I have seen several MS open source projects and they were really open source. I could download and see the source. Are there special projects that are called open but are not? Could you give some examples?
0 Votes
+ -
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
rdiekema@... 9th Dec 2009
There is nothing in Microsoft's history that suggests
that once they commit to opening up something and people
come to rely on it, they won't close it up.

They are a for profit company, if something open source
they've produced takes off and they see a potential
profit, you'd best believe they're going to close it up
and start licensing it.
0 Votes
+ -
a licence can not be retracted
staalmannen 9th Dec 2009
The nice thing though, if it is not explicitly mentioned in the
licence (which would mean that you should avoid that code) as
one of the terms, is that the source that already has been
released as open will remain open.

An example might be Paint.NET where further development has
turned closed. The source before it turned closed is however
still available and possible to further develop in a different
direction (a fork) as for example monopaint.

I think the only things to look out for in licences are terms
that might contain a "trap" such as that the original licencing
party can retroactively close the source including later
contributions (I think this was what people feared with the
Lucent licence) and secondly, licences that limit the use of
the code in an unfair manner (for example some microsoft shared
source licences explicitly demand that the code only is used
for programs running on Windows).
Apart from that I find licence incompatibilities a PITA and I
think it would be better if people could just be more trusting
and willing to compromise (I find OSI more reasonable than FSF
in this respect). The most absurd incompatibility is that of
GPL2only (for the linux kernel and others) and the GPL3.
0 Votes
+ -
What about mixed source?
DanaBlankenhorn 9th Dec 2009
That's the real subject here.

It comes from two directions. Proprietary
products adding some open source extensions.
Open source products creating "enterprise"
versions, and those are the ones with the secret
sauce.

Or, increasingly systems that are partly-open,
and partly-closed, to protect the maker from
people actually taking the source and using it.

That's a trend I hear all the time from open
source executives. And most are inclined
favorably to it. "You have to make a living,"
they say.
0 Votes
+ -
Licenses define possible paths...
bpdickson 11th Dec 2009
What is an "open source executive", anyways?

I'll bet it is an executive at a company that either: (a) sells support for open source projects; (b) develops software with a license that is kind-of open-source, but only under the control of the company itself; or (c) competes with real open-source projects and is trying to do OSINO so as to fragment the market and developer pool.

To protect a maker from people "taking the source and using it", and by using it, I presume this means, "packaging it and selling it in a commercial fashion", the only thing necessary is a license (not EULA, not contract) which has both restrictions, and enforceable "teeth". The GPL is an excellent example. The BSD license is an excellent example of one that does not protect against theft/repackaging, at all.

The irony is that there is actually more protection from GPL, which requires that the source be made available, than there is from "secret sauce". For one, the "secret sauce" is incompatible with many/most "real" open source licenses.

This means that the "open" portion of a mixed-model set-up offers less protection to the developers, too. And that cuts against the grain - developers are the life-blood of open source. The "secret sauce" only has value when it leverages a strong code base on the open side, which largely won't exist without a substantial and skilled developer pool - which won't likely accrete around such a project.

There are examples of such attempts at projects, where the eventual outcome is one of two end states: complete opening of the code base, with GPL or GPL-like licensing; or collapse and abandonment (at least by the sponsor) of the project.

In short, GPL projects can never have the "secret sauce" added to them, except in the very rare case where the whole project is controlled by one party - and even then, the existing code base is forever free because the GPL cannot be removed from that existing code base.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Phony open source to be a 2010 trend
edward polling Updated - 4th Jul
The owners of the proprietary fork exploit the situation at their own ipad bag blog sutudeg education news and pclos hwdb peril. l
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Phony open source to be a 2010 trend
zakkiromi Updated - 27th May 2011
Many claims of openness are going to be challenged next year, and my only prediction is that the identity of the attacker may sometimes surprise you. k
0 Votes
+ -
Diet Pancakes
jabailo1 9th Dec 2009
Marketeers love to appropriate popular phrases even if they lose all meaning when applied.

The only salvation is a smarter public.
0 Votes
+ -
I get it now
dtbdc@... 9th Dec 2009
I didn't appreciate what Mr. Blankenhorn was saying until this comment. Now I get it more fully.
The corollary in my business, health,used by marketeers as you say, is "wellness medicine". No such thing either.
0 Votes
+ -
mmm, pancakes
DanaBlankenhorn 9th Dec 2009
What I hear increasingly is the idea that "open
source" companies need to withhold some piece of
vital code, some important functionality, so that
customers will "buy" the support or spend money
with them on something else.
0 Votes
+ -
Made with non-homogeneous batter.
Lester Young 10th Dec 2009
It's tricky, but you can nibble around the parts with the calories.
0 Votes
+ -
Duh....
cornpie 9th Dec 2009
...I guess I'm a retard but I was under the impression that most companies (like red hat for example) were for profit companies...and intended to make money from their work by some means.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Phony open source to be a 2010 trend
gaberdiye03 Updated - 21st Jun
@cornpie I guess I'm a retard but I was under the impression that most pembe maske energy balance oyna oyunu moliva orjin krem tutune son nanomatik complex 41 new fx15companies (like red hat for example) were for profit companies...and intended to make money from their work by some means.
Developers who choose "real" open source licenses that have restrictions on them (such as the GPL) do so for good reason - to protect their work.

They want to ensure that no-one misappropriates their code and then sells it for a quick buck.

Obviously, taking work from one developer, that is available for free already, is never likely to succeed in the "quick buck" endeavor.

However, when collaboration between many developers occurs, the whole is much larger than the sum of the parts. Especially for long-term projects, the small incremental effort needed to add functionality to an already substantial project, demonstrates the real value of collaboration. But, this collaboration would be destroyed if the result could be stolen and sold.

So, why would anyone pay for support? The same reason one pays for support to any vendor - for support! That the same ability, fixing bugs, is available without the support contract, is the strength, not the weakness, in open source. Those offering support (on a widely-developed project) are not a monopoly, and can never exclude competitors from the market.

Only when a project is mostly the product of a single entity, like a commercial software maker, does the existence of a dual license matter. And again, this is where the GPL really has leverage. GPL code cannot be combined with other code without the result being GPL licensed, if it is distributed (i.e. sold or given away).

Licenses without those restrictions, always have the impact to developers, of losing access not only to your own work, but to the whole project that you have just added value to.

The long-term viability of an "open source" project is largely determined by risk. What is the risk that the project's code will be made unavailable? If the license controlling all of the code in the project does not make the risk zero, and alternatives where the risk is zero exist, the choice of most open-source developers should be obvious - the zero risk choice.

There are potentials for control issues over development, among a large enough community of developers. Fortunately for all, the GPL forces that to be in the open, and the worst possible case is only that of a "fork" in the code - two projects (or more) where one used to exist, with a shared ancestry of code. No possibility of anyone taking the code and going home exists - even if the bulk of the code came from one entity. Once licensed with the GPL, the code is free (to use and modify, subject to the GPL) forever.

Which leads to the non-obvious conclusion - why would someone choose to pay more for an open-source product than for a commercial, closed source product? Because the long-term viability of an open source product is guaranteed. Even if the support entity goes away, the code remains, and the support licensee can find another source of support or even do their own support. They never lose the ability to fix problems with code they require, or have them fixed by third parties.

How many awesome closed-source products have died because the the companies developing them went out of business? Even excellent products have gone the way of the dodo.

Everyone needs to be educated on the issue of licenses, because therein lies the critical difference. And this is where the media need to play a more direct role. Once educated, a user can no longer be played for a mark by marketers and sales folks.

They way out of monopoly lock-in is the way of openness - and GPL is the standard against which open models need to be compared, by a knowledgeable public.
0 Votes
+ -
A rose by any other name...
No_Ax_to_Grind 10th Dec 2009
Once you get over the religion of it, its all just code, use what waorks for you, toss out the rest.
0 Votes
+ -
The market will decide the best model.
Lester Young 10th Dec 2009
If an OSS project forks into one with proprietary extensions that leave users at a disadvantage, there is nothing to prevent the open code from being used to develop a competitive fork that is entirely open. The owners of the proprietary fork exploit the situation at their own peril.
0 Votes
+ -
The first fact that seems to escape most of the writers is that the most open source written by a HUGE margin is for Windows using both MS and a variety of proprietary and open source languages and environments. Just the free VB code and apps dwarf any open source software collection you'd like to mention.

Open source only continues to have relevance because proprietary enterprise companies are supporting it. Open source obsessives in garages have no real effect on the market.

The number and quality of open source applications is low. Once you ignore the poster children such as Open Office (once again supported by a company) you have a mish mash of bad coding, no documentation and a guarantee that every new release will break the last one. I'm willing to pay any sort of money to not have to use Gimp. Because I value other people's work and design I am willing to pay for software and that gives me access to lots of professional software.

Open source is a great safety net and is occasionally useful if you don't have cash but are prepared to donate time (yours and your employees) to keeping it together with chewing gum and string. This is a GOOD thing. The problem comes when people want to elevate OSS to something for the most part it's not - professional.
0 Votes
+ -
Open source peed in Tony's cereal
Ole Man 10th Dec 2009
and Tony don't like it.

We get the picture, Tony. Even those who may not be too smart.
0 Votes
+ -
Golly
Altotus 11th Dec 2009
Oh ho ho this is rich. That is hidden away in that non open code is the secret perfected code by one and only amazing perfect coder oh and be sure none of that nasty open stuff will never be hidden in there right?. That would be non-professional right?
0 Votes
+ -
What company supports Open Office?
914four 18th Dec 2009
Let's see, Microsoft's product is called MS Office (I included them since they have recently announced support for standards based document formats), Sun's is StarOffice, Apple's is called NeoOffice, IBM's is Lotus Symphony, and Novell's is OpenGroupware. Once again, what company supports OpenOffice?
As to the poster child for Open Source in industry, did you happen to forget MySQL? According to a July 2008 Market Update on Open Source Databases ( http://www.forrester.com/rb/Research/market_update_open_source_databases/q/id/46061/t/2 ), Forrester reported, "MySQL has the highest adoption and growth. MySQL continues to have the largest mindshare in the open source database market and has the highest number of paying customers for product support."
0 Votes
+ -
Oh yes
Altotus 11th Dec 2009
First tool to perfect as computer student-cut and paste.
0 Votes
+ -
It's because you dont like MS
Aussie_Troll 11th Dec 2009
Any company that releases software under a recognised open source licence is a company or individual contributing to open source.

Just because you dont like this or that company, why do you think you have the right to dictate to people or companies about what they do.

So what if you dont like Linus Torvalds, are you able to say he is not a true open source company, you're only argument is that you dont like him. Or that he may of contributed to some closed source software at some point in his life.

What if you're beloved open source companies also sell proprietary code, mabey IBM, Hed Hat, conicial, novell and so on.

They contribute to open source and they also try to make actual money by selling product that people are willing to pay for.

So, just like Stallman, and his anit-MS ranting, you do not get to pick and choose who does what.

Especially in the FOSS industry, where you want more groups, and people skilled in FOSS technology and contributing usefull products.

It's like the crazies are boycottnovell, who all run Linux machines filled with Novell code and happy tell everyone else how bad novell is.

People like that are the ones who lose all open source street cred.

Just as RMS has done by continuously rejecting and critisising groups or people that dont follow his ideal's.

So get off you're collective high horses and accept that MS does exist, and they have just as much right to create open source or proprietary code as anyone else does.

Why dont you go after BOSH for not providing all their source code for all the embedded systems they design and build for the automotive industry.

Or why not go after the GPS chip manufactures who ship their chipsets with the proprietary GPS signal and positioning software routine ?

You know when you say mobile phones or GPS's are "foss" only a very small part of the software in those devices are OSS, most of it is the proprietary embedded code that OSS mearly interfaces with, such as NMEA for GPS.

Also, FOSS ?? GCC is a clone of Unix CC, RMS did not "invent" or write CC, he copied it from UNIX CC and made it "open".

Torvalds, did not invent Linux, he took UNIX and cloned that proprietary technology and the genetic clone of UNIX is Linux.

So the mainstay's of the Open Source world, owe their very existance and life to their proprietary seeds.

So now you think you're King of the hill, and the authority on who can and who cannot create open source software.

What about "BitKeeper" that great open source project that went proprietary ?.

Why are you now up in arms at that, or what about google taking OSS and running with it, and giving back well basically NOTHING.

You dont care that conicial sells proprietary code, or RH, or IBM, but if it's Microsoft you fight of flight instints kick in and you cant help but react.

But it's primitive, and it shows.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Phony open source to be a 2010 trend
Bilmekanikeren 20th Dec 2009
Exactly what is your problem with Gimp? I like it. The people I get to try it like it.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix